the real conspiracy theory is atheism.

Whatsisface

Active member
I think so. I actually enjoy thinking as I do. It's clear that it irks the blazes out of people here.
Ah. That's it. The atheists here have got under your skin. You're having a temper tantrum and you're throwing your toys out of the pram.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Ah. That's it. The atheists here have got under your skin. You're having a temper tantrum and you're throwing your toys out of the pram.
under my skin? 🤔

nope. I just have so much fun speaking the truth it appears like that. I can however see why you need it to be that way. It's the last of your justifications for choosing ignorance over Truth.

:cool:

You really should stop assuming so much, and take the time to learn.
 

Whatsisface

Active member
under my skin? 🤔

nope. I just have so much fun speaking the truth it appears like that. I can however see why you need it to be that way. It's the last of your justifications for choosing ignorance over Truth.

:cool:

You really should stop assuming so much, and take the time to learn.
Are you still complaining to your pastor about us?
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Intelligent people cringe when others say ignorant or idiotic things.
Only if they've never heard them before.
I stopped cringing decades ago. And yet atheists say ignorant and idiotic things every day around here. It's old news, and not newsworthy.
So, the only thing you're telling me is that you're inexperienced, and full of naivete.

So you believe in the Easter Bunny.
Nope. I actually learned he wasn't real when I was probably around 4-5 years of age. So, 55+ years ago.
When did you stop believing in him? Which then brings up another point--- when did you actually learn he wasn't real?

That's the problem, you can't establish the accuracy of it so its a meaningless question.
It's only meaningless to people who aren't actually interested in learning anything. You do however demonstrate for me that atheists don't answer questions. So, thank you.
I don't care what you understand, I care whether anything you believe can be independently, objectively, factually reliably, repeatably demonstrated as being true -regardless of anyone's belief.
Of course not. Because if I did, you'd have to deal with the fact that there are only two ways you'll ever learn that YHVH is real.
1- turn to Him, from your sin, and place your trust in Jesus.
2- just wait until you die, and it'll be too late to do anything about it, and your eternal destiny will be set in stone, forever unalterable.
So.... if you don't care, it won't matter until it's too late to do anything about it. Then you'll get to live with the consequences of your unbelief forever.

So essentially yes. My position is tentative and based on facts. In situations where new evidence changes the conclusion, I alter my position in regards to the facts.
Facts you think you know, or facts that you actually know?
Then how do you know that you actually have all the facts which are necessary to know what's necessary?
Seems to me that based on your ongoing routine, you don't have anywhere near enough facts to make an informed decision.

Actions have consequences, beliefs do not.
This just tells me that you really do not grasp the nature of belief.


Right, because it requires belief.
That is your opinion.
Darn those pesky facts.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Are you still complaining to your pastor about us?
Nope.
I do however pray for you daily. Whenever you come to mind. I'm pretty sure that the rest of us who follow Jesus pray for you on some level or another too.

I would say if you don't want to be prayed for, you should leave the forum, but the truth is that God would remind us, and we'd pray for you anyways. So, you're sol on that one. We're just going to pray for you.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Okay, so I did that and now your insult-laden post has been deleted. Is that what you wanted?

As you said...
You obviously got what you wanted.

You seem to think far too highly of yourself.
I'm not here to win arguments. If you want a different type of conversation, then practice a different tactic.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You obviously got what you wanted.
Again, no I didn't. Did you?

You seem to think far too highly of yourself.
And you base that piece of projection on what, exactly?

I'm not here to win arguments.
No, you're apparently here to dodge questions, insult people and get your posts deleted.

If you want a different type of conversation, then practice a different tactic.
Again, you need to be specific about what kind of tactics you think might work in getting you to be honest and responsive to questions. So far, nothing anyone has tried seems to work.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Again, no I didn't. Did you?
You demonstrated to me a long time ago, I'll never get what I want with you, until you decide to actually engage in an actual conversation instead of trying to manipulate it.
And you base that piece of projection on what, exactly?
Observation. I have told you this before.
No, you're apparently here to dodge questions, insult people and get your posts deleted.
Not at all. I just don't answer them the way you apparently need me to.
there actually is a difference.
Again, you need to be specific about what kind of tactics you think might work in getting you to be honest and responsive to questions. So far, nothing anyone has tried seems to work.
I'm hoping that you'll be intelligent enough to learn. Is my hope misplaced?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You demonstrated to me a long time ago, I'll never get what I want with you, until you decide to actually engage in an actual conversation instead of trying to manipulate it.
Actual conversation requires you to actually answer questions. Asking you questions is not manipulation.

Observation. I have told you this before.
Can you produce a quote to back up this 'observation' or are you just jumping to an erroneous conclusion again?

I just don't answer them
And that's why you never manage to engage in conversation.

I'm hoping that you'll be intelligent enough to learn. Is my hope misplaced?
Of course I learn. But this doesn't tell me what change of tactics might get you to be honest and responsive to questions.
 

Whatsisface

Active member
Really? I know you have done. What was it now? The atheists have really burnt me out.
I do however pray for you daily. Whenever you come to mind. I'm pretty sure that the rest of us who follow Jesus pray for you on some level or another too.
This goes against your behaviour here.
I would say if you don't want to be prayed for, you should leave the forum,
Why? I would say if you don't want to discuss things reasonably, you should leave the forum.
but the truth is that God would remind us, and we'd pray for you anyways. So, you're sol on that one. We're just going to pray for you.
There was a very intelligent, civilised Christian poster with whom I had a reasonable discussion. At the end he said he would pray for me. I was touched because it confirmed his civilised attitude, he was being nice. You seem to want to pray grudgingly, you know, just because Jesus told you to, rather than because of any natural goodwill in you.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Actual conversation requires you to actually answer questions. Asking you questions is not manipulation.
No.... you're still not seeing this correctly.
It's only conversation if BOTH our questions are answered.
If I'm the only one answering questions--- you are in fact manipulating me. Police call it interrogation. So do tyrants.
So... try that again.

Can you produce a quote to back up this 'observation' or are you just jumping to an erroneous conclusion again?
This forum is filled with them. As were the previous versions which have landed on the trash heap of the digital world.
And that's why you never manage to engage in conversation.
It's not a difficult concept. Questions and answers go both ways. If they don't, it's not a conversation. It's an interrogation.
Jesus and the other bible writers have repeatedly stated-- I don't need to answer interrogatory questions.
Had you actually read the bible-- you would've seen this.
Of course I learn. But this doesn't tell me what change of tactics might get you to be honest and responsive to questions.
Because I can't tell you how to think so you know how to engage.
You have to learn these lessons yourself. I've spent 17 years learning to do this. Why should I force you to do what I had to do myself?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
It's only conversation if BOTH our questions are answered. If I'm the only one answering questions...
But you're very clearly not. You're the one refusing to answer questions. That's why there's no conversation possible with you.

This forum is filled with them.
Then quote one. Should be easy, right?

It's not a difficult concept. Questions and answers go both ways. If they don't, it's not a conversation. It's an interrogation. Jesus and the other bible writers have repeatedly stated-- I don't need to answer interrogatory questions.
Yes, conversation requires questions and answers to go both ways. But with you they don't. So stop making excuses and try answering like a reasonable person.

Because I can't tell you how to think so you know how to engage.
So you don't know what change of tactics on my part might help you to become honest and responsive to questions?

I've spent 17 years learning to do this.
You've spent a good decade here doing exactly the same thing since you arrived. No evidence of learning whatsoever. Isn't it time for a change?

Why should I force you to do what I had to do myself?
No-one's asking you to. Are you willing to answer questions yet? If not, then the lack of conversation is clearly your fault, not mine.
 

bigthinker

Active member
Only if they've never heard them before.
I stopped cringing decades ago.
Like I said....
And yet atheists say ignorant and idiotic things every day around here.
Such as?
It's old news, and not newsworthy.
So, the only thing you're telling me is that you're inexperienced, and full of naivete.
lol. Naive? How so -because I'm not gullible?
Nope. I actually learned he wasn't real when I was probably around 4-5 years of age. So, 55+ years ago.
No, you still believe in him.
But you're over 55 and you still believe in God?
And you say I'm naive?
lol.
Do you also believe that you will go to paradise when you die?
hmmm... who's naive?.......
When did you stop believing in him? Which then brings up another point--- when did you actually learn he wasn't real?
Would you like me to continue telling you what you believe? Is that helpful?
Probably not. So why don't you stick to talking about your own beliefs and refrain from telling me what I believe and I'll do the same.
It's only meaningless to people who aren't actually interested in learning anything. You do however demonstrate for me that atheists don't answer questions. So, thank you.
lol... That's not at all true. But again, beliefs aren't tied to reality so...

Of course not. Because if I did, you'd have to deal with the fact that there are only two ways you'll ever learn that YHVH is real.
1- turn to Him, from your sin, and place your trust in Jesus.
2- just wait until you die, and it'll be too late to do anything about it, and your eternal destiny will be set in stone, forever unalterable.
So.... if you don't care, it won't matter until it's too late to do anything about it. Then you'll get to live with the consequences of your unbelief forever.
Yeah, I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, Steve. And I don't believe in "YHVH". You have yet to demonstrate that your YHVH is something I should be concerned about or aware of.
Facts you think you know, or facts that you actually know?
What does it mean to "think you know" vs. "actually know"?
Then how do you know that you actually have all the facts which are necessary to know what's necessary?
Th question is: how do you know what is necessary? We only know what we know, we don't know what we don't know.
So how do I know if I have sufficient evidence/sufficient facts? I know if my/the conclusion comports with reality, if it objective, repeatable, falsifiable and if other people are capable of arriving at the same conclusion based on independent verification of the facts.
Seems to me that based on your ongoing routine, you don't have anywhere near enough facts to make an informed decision.
It doesn't seem that way to me. But it isn't really a decision; its a conclusion reached based on facts (as opposed to a conclusion based on beliefs). I can't look at the facts and choose a different conclusion.
This just tells me that you really do not grasp the nature of belief.
An this just tells me that you really do not grasp the nature of belief -or facts.
That is your opinion.
Darn those pesky facts.
Yep, those pesky facts.... lol
Let me know if you figure out a way to demonstrate that anything you believe is fact based.
 
Last edited:

SteveB

Well-known member
Really? I know you have done. What was it now? The atheists have really burnt me out.
I've learned over the years that the only way I can burn out is if I try to win.
Since I stopped trying to win a long time ago, I don't burn out.


This goes against your behaviour here.
So, because you think my praying for you is antithetical to what you believe my behavior here is, that'll exclude you from being prayed for?
You really have a lot to learn.

Why? I would say if you don't want to discuss things reasonably, you should leave the forum.
So now you're the thought police?
That's rather arrogant.

There was a very intelligent, civilised Christian poster with whom I had a reasonable discussion. At the end he said he would pray for me. I was touched because it confirmed his civilised attitude, he was being nice.
I'm glad to see someone else is praying for you.

You seem to want to pray grudgingly, you know, just because Jesus told you to, rather than because of any natural goodwill in you.
You seem pretty set that you have the foggiest idea of what I think and should do.

How's that working for you?
Ever succeed in convincing others to leave, or change their ways?
Oh, wait..... this sounds familiar.

I have a novel thought for you.

You do your job, and stop telling me how you think that I'm supposed to do mine. It'll save you from burning out.
 

Whatsisface

Active member
I've learned over the years that the only way I can burn out is if I try to win.
Since I stopped trying to win a long time ago, I don't burn out.
Maybe it's a mistake to see it as winning or losing rather than an open exchange of views. That way it's possible to at least find out what atheists think and why, and why they disagree with you. And they to understand you. As it is, you're coming off very poorly.
So, because you think my praying for you is antithetical to what you believe my behavior here is, that'll exclude you from being prayed for?
You really have a lot to learn.
See, this is typical of your way of responding to points put. You go off on a tangent rather than directly responding to the point you're replying to, with an unnecessary insult at the end. This is why people say you misrepresent them, because it has little to do with what they're trying to say, as is the case here. So to answer your question, no, that never occurred to me. I meant what I said which was....

This goes against your behaviour here.
You answer doesn't shed any light why on the one hand you dodge and insult people, and on the other you pray for them. It's two opposite attitudes.
So now you're the thought police?
That's rather arrogant.
Just incredible. You said...
I would say if you don't want to be prayed for, you should leave the forum,
....to which i replied....
Why? I would say if you don't want to discuss things reasonably, you should leave the forum.
I mirrored your reply to me, and you call me arrogant and the thought police. Did you so quickly forget what you had said that I replied to? Do you think you are being fair?
I'm glad to see someone else is praying for you.
Fine. But if you are going to pray on my behalf, pray for God to stop all disease.
You seem pretty set that you have the foggiest idea of what I think and should do.
Just like you having no idea what atheists think. Now you know what it's like.
How's that working for you?
Ever succeed in convincing others to leave, or change their ways?
Oh, wait..... this sounds familiar.
Yep. I've got under your skin alright.

I have a novel thought for you.

You do your job, and stop telling me how you think that I'm supposed to do mine. It'll save you from burning out.
Just like you here, telling me what to think and do? There is a perception in England that Americans don't understand irony. Of course it's a broad generalisation, but you are living up to it.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
There is a perception in England that Americans don't understand irony. Of course it's a broad generalisation, but you are living up to it.
I think I see some of what you're referring to. My instinct is that this and the ubiquitous political hypocrisy are related in some way. If we assume that such people are being sincere (and I've argued many times that they're not, but I'll leave that aside), both phenomena seem to imply a lack of self-awareness. For example, the hypocrite who argues for <X> today and is then argues for <Not X> the next day; the person who criticizes <Z> today after they've been seen being guilty of <Z> on a previous occasion.

Is there some overarching phenomenon which explains both things? I may be oversimplifying the behavior of an extremely large-and-diverse group of Americans, but something tells me both things are related in some way. Maybe it's an unwillingness to self-examine? Maybe it's more about group-think / tribalism, where reinforcing group membership is more important than a coherent worldview?

It may just be that some portion of the American electorate view the culture war we're engaged in as having primacy. Self-consistency/awareness takes a backseat to sticking it to the libs, etc.

I don't know...
 

bigthinker

Active member
Maybe it's a mistake to see it as winning or losing rather than an open exchange of views. That way it's possible to at least find out what atheists think and why, and why they disagree with you. And they to understand you. As it is, you're coming off very poorly.
People who know everything aren't interested in an open exchange of ideas; they have no need. They already know what atheists think and "believe" and so the main goal is to be irksome.
See, this is typical of your way of responding to points put. You go off on a tangent rather than directly responding to the point you're replying to, with an unnecessary insult at the end. This is why people say you misrepresent them, because it has little to do with what they're trying to say, as is the case here. So to answer your question, no, that never occurred to me. I meant what I said which was....


You answer doesn't shed any light why on the one hand you dodge and insult people, and on the other you pray for them. It's two opposite attitudes.

Just incredible. You said...

....to which i replied....

I mirrored your reply to me, and you call me arrogant and the thought police. Did you so quickly forget what you had said that I replied to? Do you think you are being fair?

Fine. But if you are going to pray on my behalf, pray for God to stop all disease.

Just like you having no idea what atheists think. Now you know what it's like.

Yep. I've got under your skin alright.


Just like you here, telling me what to think and do? There is a perception in England that Americans don't understand irony. Of course it's a broad generalisation, but you are living up to it.
All good points.
 

Whatsisface

Active member
I think I see some of what you're referring to. My instinct is that this and the ubiquitous political hypocrisy are related in some way. If we assume that such people are being sincere (and I've argued many times that they're not, but I'll leave that aside), both phenomena seem to imply a lack of self-awareness. For example, the hypocrite who argues for <X> today and is then argues for <Not X> the next day; the person who criticizes <Z> today after they've been seen being guilty of <Z> on a previous occasion.

Is there some overarching phenomenon which explains both things? I may be oversimplifying the behavior of an extremely large-and-diverse group of Americans, but something tells me both things are related in some way. Maybe it's an unwillingness to self-examine? Maybe it's more about group-think / tribalism, where reinforcing group membership is more important than a coherent worldview?

It may just be that some portion of the American electorate view the culture war we're engaged in as having primacy. Self-consistency/awareness takes a backseat to sticking it to the libs, etc.

I don't know...
To be honest, I'm afraid I don't know either.
 

bigthinker

Active member
I think I see some of what you're referring to. My instinct is that this and the ubiquitous political hypocrisy are related in some way. If we assume that such people are being sincere (and I've argued many times that they're not, but I'll leave that aside), both phenomena seem to imply a lack of self-awareness. For example, the hypocrite who argues for <X> today and is then argues for <Not X> the next day; the person who criticizes <Z> today after they've been seen being guilty of <Z> on a previous occasion.

Is there some overarching phenomenon which explains both things? I may be oversimplifying the behavior of an extremely large-and-diverse group of Americans, but something tells me both things are related in some way. Maybe it's an unwillingness to self-examine? Maybe it's more about group-think / tribalism, where reinforcing group membership is more important than a coherent worldview?

It may just be that some portion of the American electorate view the culture war we're engaged in as having primacy. Self-consistency/awareness takes a backseat to sticking it to the libs, etc.

I don't know...
Self examination requires a bit of mental work. Many adults can't even define what they're feeling let alone what they think. Its as if many of us go around without exercising that kind-of third party bit in our brains that assesses what we're going through as we're experiencing it. And how we feel about a subject/issue/topic can change as we frame it differently and rationalize it internally (which perhaps takes less mental energy?). So its okay for Lindsey Graham to argue that Obama should be prevented from placing a supreme court justice because his term as president was nearing its end AND say that his words should be recorded for future use but then completely do the opposite in 2020 with Trump appointing Amy Coney Barret... It would be less despicable if it weren't so obvious. Politicians are known for not having much backbone or integrity but Graham is an extreme case; its a wonder he can even walk.
 
Top